The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint against Nick Freeman - aka ‘Mr Loophole’ - the solicitor who is famed for helping celebrities escape motoring convictions.

It found that an advertisement on Freeman & Co’s website was at fault for implying that the Manchester criminal solicitor would be directly involved in the details of every case.

A former client of Freeman said the claim ‘With Freeman & Co you’ll receive – Nick Freeman’s expertise and experience in cases’ was misleading, as they understood Freeman was only involved in certain priority cases.

Freeman’s clients have included Jimmy Carr, David Beckham and Jeremy Clarkson. His firm’s website describes him as ‘the most famous solicitor practising in the country today’. 

The firm denied the claim and said Freeman was available to speak to every client and also prepared cases on an ad hoc basis, irrespective of whether clients requested this.

But the ASA said: ‘We considered the overall impression of the ad was such that it would be understood to mean Nick Freeman would be directly involved with the details of each client’s case.

‘Because in some instances Mr Freeman had only overall supervision of cases, we concluded the ad was misleading.’

Responding to the decision, Freeman (pictured) said this was the first time he had received such a complaint. He said the advertisement related to his firm’s old website, which has been changed.

‘The client initially complained to the Legal Ombudsman who rejected her complaint. She then complained to the ASA which also rejected the complaint.

‘However, she appealed and the complaint was upheld upon the basis that the website created the impression that I am involved in every case.

‘While I do have an involvement in every case, I clearly cannot personally represent every client. This client never personally requested, or paid for, my representation in court.’ 

The ASA ruled that the advertisement must not appear again in its current form. ‘We told Freeman & Co to ensure their future advertising did not imply staff would be directly involved with clients if that was not always the case,’ it said.